FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Social Media Politics (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Social Media Politics
Risuena
Member
Member # 2924

 - posted      Profile for Risuena   Email Risuena         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My favorite are all the "Introverts are so misunderstood! We just love books!!!!!!" That several of my friends post regularly.

Also, while that list is bullshit (as are most lists of that type), I definitely think there are people who can be described as "outgoing introverts" and they likely fall near the middle of the introversion/extroversion spectrum.

Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, sure. But the current "outgoing introvert" trend isn't actually aimed at a middle ground, but instead is there for people who are by all appearances normal, socially well adjusted extroverted human beings to take comfort in the fact that they too are secretly introverts and are therefore deep and moody and layered and mysterious and perceptive. (Because it's impossible to be that cool as an extrovert)

I can see the appeal, I guess. I'm a fairly introverted person who greatly values alone time, doesn't feel a need to be around people, doesn't like being touched or touchy feely people, doesn't like parties or crowds, and when I go out it's to this old little Irish pub where I sit at a table in the corner and drink scotch and listen to the band. The guy who usually sits across from me, Bill, is 80 years old. He doesn't talk much either. I certainly don't mind being around people or going dancing with my wife or going to concerts, and I've worked a job where I've had to be extremely outgoing and outspoken. It's just not really my thing, so to speak.

So I could call myself an "outgoing introvert" if I wanted to make myself feel special and unique, but the truth is I'm just a normal, (hopefully) well adjusted human being and am more than capable of relating to people without having to noun some adjectives into a seemingly arbitrary categorical definition.

Like, going by that list, if I don't return your calls, is it because I'm an extroverted introvert and that's just one of my quirks because science and stuff? Or am I just a dick?

If I'm grumpy after a long day of work and don't want to talk, does this behavior really need to be described as an ingrained facet of my special snowflake personality, or is it just because I'm tired?

If I'm "super flirty" with everyone, is this some inherent aspect of how "outgoing introverts" relate to people, or do I just have boundary issues?

It seems to serve a secondary function of justifying questionable, immature or even just normal behavior with a quick self-diagnosis. You're not immature, you're just different. Special. Deep and mysterious in a way all those "extroverts" (and why do we never see any articles about "10 signs you're an extrovert" or whatever) will never understand.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Risuena
Member
Member # 2924

 - posted      Profile for Risuena   Email Risuena         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah, as I said the list is bullshit. I'm not sure what any of the items have to do being introverted.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreed Risu.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is being shared all over Facebook with headlines like "Finally!" "About time someone said it!"

This is news? I think anyone with an internet connection is well aware of Kanye's ego issues. I also think it's a bit scummy to bring his mother into it and also ruins any slim chance of him taking any part of that video to heart.

I thought it was going to end with some hack they pulled on him. Isn't that the point of Anonymous?

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did not watch the Kanye video.

POTUS was caught on camera calling him a name that probably violates Hatrack's TOS, but is ironically another name for Democrat.

'Nuff said.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Update: Another share, this time with the insinuation that Kanye himself created the video for publicity
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This has been shared several times today. Taking a look at who they consider the World's Greatest Leaders...the hell kind of list is this? Random celebrities mixed with businessmen mixed with some good some mediocre political figures?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what even is that list

what even is it

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Taylor Swift.

Taylor Swift is the 6th greatest leader in the world.

What.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If People Left Parties Like They Left Facebook
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My sister told me she started reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. I remember lots of people here raving about it and I had wanted to read it ever since. My sister is telling me that the message of the book is sort of about trusting instincts over research and how information is often overanalyzed in science.

I'm surprised that a book with that message would get so much love here considering the exact opposite message was the consensus during vaccine discussions here.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
gladwell gets some crap for being emblematic of 'pop science' but his writing tends to be rather well researched and thought provoking in a way that similar protoworks like "freakonomics" really isn't to me, and he has a long legacy of picking the right subjects of controversy and coming to the correct conclusions.

Blink is not actually about 'trusting instincts over research' — it's about understanding the nonintuitive ways in which our brains produce snap judgments, how it influences our thinking, and it talks a lot about in what good or bad ways it makes us respond to things and how it allows people or situations to game or short circuit our thought processes. There is a long section there analyzing the Amadou Diallo shooting which i legitimately consider one of the most important insights into why police shootings tend to happen the way they do and the paramount importance of the kind of training many police are not getting. But it does also include lots of insight into when our instinct is an inextricable and useful part of our decisionmaking processes.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
If People Left Parties Like They Left Facebook

that nailed the ending almost as hard as Diet Racism
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just watched Diet Racism, that was awesome.

College Humor has some really funny videos.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah the ending really nails it. [Smile]
Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
My sister told me she started reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. I remember lots of people here raving about it and I had wanted to read it ever since. My sister is telling me that the message of the book is sort of about trusting instincts over research and how information is often overanalyzed in science.

I'm surprised that a book with that message would get so much love here considering the exact opposite message was the consensus during vaccine discussions here.

You would be surprised, because you haven't read the book, and don't understand the message at all.

It is not that information is "over analyzed," but that data is too often used to make assumptions about how people will behave in the long term, according to how they behave in the short term. It has a lot to do with what kind of foods we buy once, versus the foods we buy all our Iives, and how someone can influence long and short term decisions, stuff like that. It's also about how we have to look *more* at the data for situations in which we assume events are random or uncontrollable.

But good job not reading a book, and taking your second hand vague understanding of what it says, and turning that into a point about how the people here are hypocrits. That's not lazy or anything.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm surprised that a book with that message would get so much love here considering the exact opposite message was the consensus during vaccine discussions here.
Let me rephrase that:

I'd be surprised if that's the message of the book because people here loved it and the exact opposite message was the consensus during vaccine discussions here.

Thanks for the summary.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That isn't the message I took from the vaccination discussion here, but then again I was having trouble parsing the thread as a whole, so I'm not a good judge. For a while there in online discussions about vaccinations, it was becoming distressingly common for me to find out someone had been posting under a given goal but really trying to suss out potential arguments from the other side. Like, just testing the waters to see what's out there. I had real difficulty with entering into online vaccine discussions after that, in good part because my bullshit-o-meter had lost all specificity and would ping off all the time. [And I hold that this is not fair to anyone who has to interact with me. [Smile] ]

Anyway, what I took from "Blink" wasn't that snap judgments are privileged over thoughtful research, but rather that both ways of making decisions are important and have their place in a full spectrum of understanding about how to make good decisions. In some cases, one approach is better than others, but neither one for always and in all cases.

[ April 11, 2015, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: CT ]

Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That isn't the message I took from the vaccination discussion here, but then again I was having trouble parsing the thread as a whole, so I'm not a good judge.
I meant that the message from the discussion was the importance of research and data when it comes to an issue like vaccinating children and why they outweigh a parent's fear of vaccines stemming from their 'instincts' that something is wrong with them.

quote:
For a while there in online discussions about vaccinations, it was becoming distressingly common for me to find out someone had been posting under a given goal but really trying to suss out potential arguments from the other side. Like, just testing the waters to see what's out there.
I hope you don't think that's what I was doing. My original goal really was to help my sister understand the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations to ameliorate her fears in getting her son the recommended immunizations, although it grew into trying to improve my understanding of the issue when dealing with anti-vaxxers in general.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I meant that the message from the discussion was the importance of research and data when it comes to an issue like vaccinating children and why they outweigh a parent's fear of vaccines stemming from their 'instincts' that something is wrong with them.
Gladwell talks about both the strengths and pitfalls of snap judgments. Snap judgments are useful for certain decision-making procedures but not others, and I think decisions about vaccination belong to the latter group, at least for people not yet familiar with the full context.

It's getting the full context -- at some prior point -- that makes someone good at recognizing the truth from a slice. Most of us can do this by making a snap judgment about our interpersonal safety fairly accurately within a few moments of meeting someone. It's not perfect, and we're sometimes wrong (especially because we are biased by prejudices), but most all adults have had hundreds of thousands of interactions with other people to draw on.

In a different case, there is good research to show that the best single judge point of whether a baby is septic is the snap judgment of an experienced pediatrician. It's not a blood culture, which has a known failure rate of capture, or body temperature, or white blood cell count, or even the full amassing of all those data points. Instead, it's the first impression of a person who's seen literally tens of thousands of children in various stages of distress.

That does not mean that the snap judgement in this circumstance of an average person off the street is equally reliable. They are not equivalent.

For most people making snap judgments about vaccinations, the context is that of someone without the underlying foundation. They do not yet have the full context to draw on "instinctively." They are the guy off the street, not the experienced pediatrician. Not the same, even if both are making snap judgments based on little information specific to this circumstance.

But in many areas of life, the reverse is true. In those cases, we have a fuller context to draw on that makes the "slice" of information enough.

quote:
I hope you don't think that's what I was doing. My original goal really was to help my sister understand the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations to ameliorate her fears in getting her son the recommended immunizations, although it grew into trying to improve my understanding of the issue when dealing with anti-vaxxers in general.
It's just that this is where my head is/was. I can't engage in good faith about vaccinations with people anymore. I can't do it. Not a reflection on a given person, just shell-shocked, gun-shy, hand-burnt, overly-pranked, what have you. I'm a suck at judging those situations these days.

Haven't got any perspective left! So no snap judgments there for me. I pass no judgements on individuals. I merely avoid those conversations now. [Smile]

[ April 11, 2015, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: CT ]

Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PS: I am a Big Fan of knowing what I don't know. I try to limit myself in areas I might go off the rails. That is most of life, actually, and it certainly includes how to talk about this topic online.

On the other hand, I'm like the Queen of Poop. Constipation? I got that shiz down, y'all. All kids are constipated. (even the ones with diarrhea)

Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think there can be a lot of confusion of closely related terms on this subject.

I think the usefulness and validity of "snap judgments" is predicated on two things: one's experience and expertise, and a time sensitive situation. I work as an analyst, and my boss - who has done this job for 16 years and literally designed and coded most of the tools I use for my job - can often (somewhat infuriatingly) come up behind me, see a project I'm working on, and then triage the incident and extrapolate a correct analysis and propose a solution in a few seconds where it might take me 15 minutes or even an hour+ of research and deduction. He only does this occasionally to show off and encourages us to be extremely thorough in our research and reporting, but in time sensitive situations (which occur fairly frequently) his expertise and ability to make "snap judgments" is absolutely crucial to our success.

This is often confused and conflated with "instinct", which I feel is a somewhat discrete (though related) concept. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to explain what I mean adequately here, but I'll certainly try.

I don't think "instincts" are something we can definitively say are "good" or "bad" without qualification. By which I mean, instincts are, or at least, can be, honed by experience and expertise to be extraordinarily useful. I.e, we make "snap decisions" all the time in social situations based on instinct (and it usually works out for us), but that instinct has been honed by a lifetime of experience in human interaction. I think in many cases what people attribute to "innate instinct" is their mind rapidly putting together small clues and synthesizing the best possible solution. In other words, "instinct" is that same analytical process, just sped up and mostly subconscious. I certainly don't believe "instinct" to be some mythical, mysterious or infallible source of wisdom that one taps into, and while I don't think many in the "anti-vax" crowd believe that either, it certainly gets referred to and treated that way.

So, to borrow CT's example (sorry), I think the "snap judgments" of an experienced pediatrician about sepsis (which is also a very time sensitive determination) would be of enormous value due to the knowledge and sheer amount of experience said pediatrician has in their field. My instincts on the matter, otoh, would probably be next to worthless.

So the reason I don't think "instinct" is a valid reason when deciding whether or not to vaccinate one's child really boils down to the fact it doesn't meet those two criteria:

First, it's not at all a time sensitive decision. It's one that you are able to carefully contemplate and research and seek expert opinion on.

Second, it's not an issue which most parents have the experience or expertise - taking in consideration of all the possible factors - to make a snap decision on. That being said, it's not an issue that *I* have said experience or expertise on either, so I can't definitively claim any sort of authority in telling parents whether or not they should vaccinate their children. (though I can certainly refer them to well written articles that explain in unambiguous terms why they should) But I do feel comfortable saying that it's not a decision I believe should be left up to "instincts."

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Others have said it, but instinct has a connotation that doesn't really match with some of its most common uses. For example, in the case of CT, Turd Whisperer (I'm sorry, I really am, that just came to me and I couldn't not say it!), is instinct the correct word for her experience based on scores, hundreds, thousands of similar cases that give her dozens of points of data for each one?.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't really know if it is or not. Thus my convoluted post above - I honestly think it's a term that has such vastly different connotations for different people that it causes this sort of confusion. (to the point where apparently Gaal's sister is able to (intentionally?) misread a book due to difference in definition) Rakeesh - what do you think of how I (attempte to) define and demystify the term?

Also, "Turd Whisperer". [ROFL] (I imagine it being whispered in a deep, breathless-movie-announcer-voiceover. "the tuuurd whisperer *brief montage of CT looking dramatically comtemplative while reading a chart, maybe whipping off a pair of glasses*)

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am, though. I really am the tuuurd whisperer.

[Big Grin]

----
Edited to add: This ... this is what it comes down to. My life, 'tis not for naught; 'tis for the glory of poop.

Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tis the twinkling turd radiant of itself, or does your odyssey for its odious odors obtain its glory?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm a pragmatist. Quantity over quality. A veritable mogul of merde.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm now imagining CT in a Guy Fawkes mask singing an ode to poo in Hugo Weaving's voice.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152662771591512

I can imagine a similar experiment where this girl feeds a handful of all-natural organic grapes to a dog which then gets extremely sick. She then looks at the camera and asks, "If this is what happens to a dog, do you think you should be eating it?"

Why should I care about the effects something has on a sweet potato's roots growing ability? I'm not a sweet potato. I actually have a pretty different chemical makeup.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I'm not a sweet potato.

Citation needed.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
chives needed
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sweet potato and chives?

Gross dude.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Manning
Member
Member # 2076

 - posted      Profile for David Manning   Email David Manning         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think therefore I'm not a yam?
Posts: 49 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was between posting this here or in the "Do Jews support Obama?" thread:

A friend of mine posted an article about Obama meeting with Jewish leaders to address their fears about Iran and had this to say:

"It's not about meeting with "Jewish" leaders, it's about meeting with Israeli leaders. Israel is not just a religious state, it is a democracy, whose existence maybe threatened. Israel consists of more than just strictly "Jewish leaders." These are Muslims, Jews, Christians, and absolutely people who respect freedom. This meeting only further demonstrates this president's anti-Semitisim."

What.

I want to comment on this but I don't trust the conversation to stay civil, and since it's a friend whom I haven't spoken to in a while it's not really worth it.

I'm attempting to write a piece titled "Is Obama anti-Semitic?" and lead into why Jews don't need to vote Republican in the upcoming election just to feel like they're supporting Israel but I'm not sure if I have the writing chops for it.

Would anyone here be up for reviewing it and giving me some feedback when I'm done with it?

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Was the meeting with Israeli leaders? If so, then it was a bad headline but that is hardly the President's fault. Are they under the impression that Israeli leaders monolithically "respect freedom"? What does that even mean?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama to his critics: Ya'll don't want it

http://youtu.be/_SbnuuFiJF8

They should have ended the video with the "Deal with it" meme.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is it about this, Gaal?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-meets-with-jewish-american-leaders-to-defuse-iran-fears/2015/04/13/fc264526-e1f9-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

...if so, it's kind of sadly funny that someone felt the need to correct the headline based on a distinction between Israel and Jewish leaders.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The YouTube video I just posted?

No, it's just a video of Obama "fact checking" some of his critics and calling out some of the people who were fear mongering about what the country would look like under his presidency.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, I was referring to the post from last week. I didn't check the timestamp and assumed it was fresh in your memory, sorry.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think he meant the headline was incorrect, I think he was trying to say that Obama shouldn't be just meeting with Jewish leaders, he should be meeting with Israeli leaders.

How Obama taking the time to alleviate Jewish leaders' concerns with Iran "further demonstrates his anti-Semitism" is beyond me, though.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
https://www.facebook.com/RepresentUs/videos/1104793056201231/?pnref=story

I think it does an okay job of laying out the problem that I think everyone knows is a problem, but, without having taken the time to actually check out their website, the method to their solution seems a little strange. I think the best fix would simply be for all of us to become informed voters. If a politician gets his vote bought and does one of those sketchy bill passes then we make sure he doesn't get reelected, and make sure the challenger gets the message that if he pulls what the incumbent did, he will also be out of a job come next election. Campaign money from lobbyists won't mean much if they know they won't get reelected if there actions don't align with what's in the best interest of the public. And I'm assuming it wouldn't be cost efficient for the lobbyists to having to keep offering lucrative jobs to a new official every campaign cycle.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
ers. If a politician gets his vote bought and does one of those sketchy bill passes then we make sure he doesn't get reelected...
While we're at it, I'd like a pony.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well yeah, but any solution is going to sound super idealistic. I mean, here's theirs: https://represent.us/action/thesolution/

It just seems like it'd a fix to the symptom and not the problem. The problem is that money CAN win elections because we don't vote.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I vote. :-(.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
I vote. :-(.

Me too.

Speak for yourself, Gaal!

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I vote too. By "we" I meant Americans in general.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So this showed up in my FB feed this morning:

White Folks And America Are The Problem – Michelle Obama Addresses All Black University With Divisive Message

quote:
Her mission is an extension of that of Hussein Obama, to foment unrest and destabilize America. Her message was clear, “whatever is wrong with your life is America and the white man’s fault, and whitey owes you.”

Actual text

Decide for yourself if that is a fair characterization.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I vote too. By "we" I meant Americans in general.

Americans in general vote. Over 60% of registered voters turned out in 2012- higher than any election since 1948. In addition, a higher percentage of voting population turned out in 2012 than has turned out since the 1970s- and that is despite a lower rate of registration and higher barriers to register. So people seem to be voting, in general.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
I vote. :-(.

yeah thanks a lot ugh
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2